Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles

The Affordable Care Act v. Supreme Court, Round 2

AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster Y esterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases questioning the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate: Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc . These rulings could have potentially major implications for the rights of American women. Let's consider the issues at hand, one at a time: Does the contraceptive mandate violate religious freedom? The key question in both cases is whether the contraceptive mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This legislation requires any policy placing a "substantial burden" on religious Americans prove that said burden serves a compelling government interest. Both Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby contend that the Affordable Care Act's demand that they offer contraception coverage to their employees does not pass the Religious Freedom Restoriation Act's test. But, as the Prospect 's Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux asks , is the mandate actually violating the religious...

Four Reasons the Nuclear Option Was a Liberal Win

The detonation of the "nuclear option" against the filibuster for executive branch and most judicial-branch appointments was an obvious win for progressives . If, as seems likely, the use of the nuclear option puts the filibuster on the road to complete oblivion, this is an even bigger win for progressives, as the filibuster is a reactionary device both in theory and in practice . And yet, many people on all parts of the ideological spectrum have resisted this conclusion. Here are some of the major arguments being made against the deal from a Democratic perspective—and why they're wrong. 1. Democrats Will Be Sorry, Because This Means Republicans Will Keep Doing What They've Been Doing Since the Reagan Administration As I discussed in my initial reaction to the historic action of Reid and the Democratic caucus, the debate over whether to end most judicial filibusters has involved numerous threats by Republicans to keep appointing the same kinds of judges that conservative presidents...

Harry Reid's Triumph

At least when it comes to executive branch and (most) judicial branch appointments, to paraphrase Leonard Cohen, democracy is coming to the United States Senate. Senate Democrats responded to the Republican minority's blockade against any Obama appointments to the D.C. Circuit by eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominations. This vote will likely be the most important congressional vote of President Obama's second term, and Senate Majority Harry Reid and most of the rest of the Democratic caucus deserve immense credit for pulling it off. I have explained at length why I believe that the filibuster is an indefensible practice. The short version is that the American political system already has an inordinately high number of veto points, so anyone favoring additional extraconstitutional ones should face a very high burden of proof. The filibuster, with its long and dismal history of allowing overrepresented minorities to prevent Congress from addressing the interests of...

Things Aren't Looking Good for Reproductive Rights in Texas

AP Photo/Eric Gay, File
AP Photo/Tamir Kalifa, File On Tuesday, there was at least one good piece of good news for supporters of reproductive freedom, as the proposed post-20-week abortion ban the Prospect 's Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux covered earlier this week was defeated by an encouraging ten-point margin . At another venue, however, there was bad news for the reproductive rights of women. A bare majority of the Supreme Court allowed the draconian new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas legislature to go into effect, and did so in a way that represents bad news for the possibility of the law being struck down by the Court. The question the Supreme Court was considering was an appeal to a decision written by ultra-reactionary Circuit Court Judge Priscilla Owen "staying"—that is, preventing from going into effect—a District Court ruling holding some parts of the Texas law unconstitutional. Owen's absurdly narrow reading of Casey was not surprising, and unfortunately it's not necessarily an inaccurate...

Civil-Rights Law Dodges a Bullet in Mount Holly

AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File
Late last week, there was a very rare piece of good news involving civil rights and the Roberts Court. The news was good because a crucial civil-rights case will no longer involve the Roberts Court. The township of Mount Holly, New Jersey settled a lawsuit brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and in so doing thankfully deprived the five Republican appointees on the Supreme Court of another opportunity to take a meat axe to federal civil-rights protections. The suit involved a plan by the township to "redevelop" Mount Holly Gardens, a low-income neighborhood with predominately African-American and Hispanic residents. As detailed by MSNBC's Adam Serwer, under the plan Mount Holly would "buy the aging homes, raze them and replace them with higher-end housing the residents couldn’t afford." Because of a variety of factors including the bursting of the real-estate bubble, much of the demolition went forward but the redevelopment didn't. Residents of Mount Holly Gardens brought suit...